Having limited resources leads people to spend differently, such as buying a lottery ticket instead of paying a bill, research showed.
Paul Sakuma, Associated Press - Ap
Lack of money seems to affect how the poor think, study says
- Article by: AMINA KHAN
- Los Angeles Times
- November 3, 2012 - 11:33 PM
Why do poor people spend money in ways that seem to squander their already limited resources, like buying lottery tickets? It's not necessarily that they're less savvy about financial matters, but their lack of funds appears to affect the way they think, new research says.
The poor often make decisions that deepen their poverty, such as borrowing money at exorbitant interest rates.
Sociologists and behavioral researchers have several explanations for this, including a "culture of poverty" that makes it seem normal to be poor, undermining efforts to join the middle class.
But a study published in the journal Science offers another explanation: No matter who you are, having severely limited resources alters the way you make decisions.
When cash is flowing and money is no object, people handle groceries, gas and rent without a second's thought, the theory goes. But when there aren't enough funds to easily meet all these expenses, payers may spend a lot of mental energy focusing on the grocery bill but will then miss a credit card payment, even though they'll accrue penalties.
This theory would be difficult to test in the real world, said Anuj Shah, the behavioral economist at the University of Chicago who led the study with colleagues from Harvard and Princeton. "In our experiment, we basically tried to make people poor and make them rich."
Shah's team set up five different games. In each case, they limited some of the players' resources to see how it affected their decisions.
In one game, 60 participants played a version of "Wheel of Fortune." The "poor" players were allowed to make six guesses per round, while "rich" players got 20. The researchers found that poor players performed worse on a cognitive task after playing the game, a sign that their brains were working harder even though the rich were actually playing more.
In the next experiment, 68 volunteers played a slingshot-firing game. Poor players could take only three shots on each level, while rich players got 15 shots. The researchers found that the poor spent more time aiming the first shot of each level because they knew they had to use their limited resources wisely.
That deeper engagement paid off. Poor players earned more points per shot (2.31, on average) than the rich (1.67). But that advantage disappeared if they were allowed to borrow a shot from a future round. When players had the option of taking an extra shot now and giving up two shots later -- essentially, paying an interest rate of 100 percent -- poor players were 12 times more likely than rich players to take that deal, even though it resulted in lower average scores.
The next few experiments strengthened these findings. In one of the games, the researchers ran a Family Feud-style trivia contest, giving poor players just 15 seconds to answer questions while rich players got 50 seconds. The same patterns emerged, even though the resource was time, not money.
The results add a layer of complexity to economic theories of poverty, Shah said. It's not that poor people don't save or tend to ignore the future, they just see things differently.
"If you look at the data, you see that low-income individuals do save, but they save a little differently," he said. "They save for specific expenses -- for an appliance or for their kid's wedding. They're saving because their attention has shifted to a particular problem that is out there."
© 2016 Star Tribune